Warehouses Get Warehouse Load History

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on latency, history retention window, volume of data returned, or whether the warehouse must exist/be active.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the three history categories front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage context, the description is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter warehouse_name is documented nowhere except its name. The description's phrase 'for a warehouse' only obliquely implies the identifier, adding essentially no semantics (e.g. name vs. ID, case sensitivity, whether suspended warehouses are valid).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (warehouse load history) and enumerates the scope: execution load, queuing, and provisioning history. It is clearly distinct from siblings like warehouses_describe_warehouse or warehouses_list_warehouses, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus warehouses_describe_warehouse, recipes_warehouse_scale_and_execute, or the query-history tools. No prerequisites, time-range expectations, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.